Benchmarking Without a Backbone: Compliance Beyond EnergyStar
The EnergyStar Portfolio Manager platform may be ending—but cities can lead the way with smarter, more resilient tools for climate accountability.
For over a decade, EnergyStar Portfolio Manager has quietly served as the digital backbone of building energy benchmarking programs in cities and states across the U.S. That’s about to change.
EnergyStar Portfolio Manager (ESPM) is the compliance platform behind New York’s Local Law 84, Boston’s BERDO, LA’s EBEWE, and more than two dozen other laws that require commercial buildings to track and report their energy use. These energy benchmarking ordinances are critical tools in the fight against climate change. By requiring buildings to track and report their energy use, they create the data backbone cities need to target emissions, enforce decarbonization policies, and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
But the backbone is cracking. The current federal administration is preparing to sunset ESPM—abruptly and without a clear replacement. If that happens, cities and states that depend on ESPM not only lose a tool; they lose their reporting pipeline, enforcement mechanism, and a keystone of their climate strategy. Many haven’t begun planning for this.
It’s time to start.
What’s at Stake
Benchmarking ordinances aren’t just clerical mandates. They are foundational to many jurisdictions’ building decarbonization pathways. Energy disclosure laws enable emissions caps, retrofit incentives, and carbon trading programs. They inform climate equity investments. They’re also the legal muscle behind penalties for non-compliance.
Without a viable alternative to ESPM, cities face painful choices: delay enforcement, scrap the policy, or scramble for a patchwork solution. But early action makes all the difference.
Policy Paths
There are four broad policy paths for cities to follow. The first three are suboptimal, leaving a clear winner in the fourth path.
1. Suspend Reporting Requirements Temporarily
The lowest-resistance path is a temporary pause. Cities could delay annual filings for a year while sorting out a new system.
Pros: Buys time, minimal near-term disruption.
Cons: Signals retreat, invites non-compliance, and may require legal updates to avoid ambiguity.
2. Build a Replacement In-House
Cities with the budget and talent might consider building a custom intake and validation portal. Some already have online submission systems in place for other building permits or code compliance.
Pros: Long-term control and adaptability.
Cons: Expensive, slow, and technically demanding. Most municipal IT departments are not staffed to replicate a national-scale benchmarking engine.
3. Partner with Third-Party Platforms
A more scalable option is to work with existing government service platforms or commercial vendors that already ingest building energy data. Gov-tech vendors like GovOS, OpenGov, or CityBase already support permitting and compliance workflows. Climate tech companies like Measurabl or UrbanFootprint may also play a role.
Pros: Fast deployment and built-in security.
Cons: Risk of substituting one dependency (ESPM) for another—this time proprietary and profit-driven. Ordinance changes may be required.
4. Standardize a Common Format + Build on Open Infrastructure
The winner is a low-cost, low-lock-in path: adopt a shared, open data standard and support multiple implementation models.
Use BuildingSync (from NREL) as the data backbone.
Create a jurisdiction-neutral Excel template + upload tool, validated by open-source software (e.g., OpenStudio).
Lean on regional technical assistance hubs like BayREN, or adapt California’s CEC benchmarking portal for broader use.
Let states or coalitions lead the way, enabling local flexibility and shared infrastructure.
(And extra points for pledging to keep the building data thus collected open source for policy researchers and product developers to use to further the climate cause.)
Pros: Low cost, quick to implement, avoids vendor lock-in, and builds on publicly funded infrastructure. Can scale regionally with the right conveners.
Cons: Requires cross-jurisdictional coordination and light funding for shared support and maintenance.
Start Now, Not Later
Most jurisdictions haven’t inventoried their legal dependencies on ESPM. Fewer still have asked their own building departments or IT teams what it would take to shift systems.
Cities don’t need to solve this alone. Regional coalitions, climate action collaboratives, and peer cities can coordinate responses and develop shared tools. With nimble, low-lift solutions such as a standardized intake form or API schema, dozens of jurisdictions could be served if someone takes the lead.
Leadership = Planning Ahead
This isn’t just a compliance crisis—it’s a test of policy resilience. Tools come and go. Climate mandates, once passed, must persist. Cities that act early will preserve continuity, protect credibility, and maintain momentum.
Let’s not wait for the platform to vanish. Let’s build what’s next—on purpose.
